• 목록
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but contain features in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is the first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is, since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study expand its findings to different settings or 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 체험 [portal.uaptc.edu] patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patient populations which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.